Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (31592)	6/5/2002 5:05:36 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, You are right. Sorry I mentioned it. Paul

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (31592)	6/5/2002 5:47:14 PM
From: Songwrks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"So why did he give Sharon permission to go (to the Temple Mount)? Because all his PA contacts assured him that it would be okay, there would be no trouble." Exactly! Do you have a source for this? The reason I ask is that when I have told others this, the propaganda is so immense, I would actually like to bolster the truth with fact sources. Thank you so much, Nadine, for the enormous contribution you make to this board. I'm a rare poster, but a dedicated reader, and I always, always look for your posts. Speaking of valuable, insightful, and generous posts....Missing Hawkmoon! Hope he'll begin to post again with his usual vigor! SongWrks

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (31592)	6/5/2002 6:25:41 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

First, Sharon did not storm the Temple Mount without permission; he had permission from the Israeli government. While Barak did have an interest in Sharon's grandstanding, since he preferred to run against Sharon rather than Netanyahu, he had absolutely no interest in an explosion of violence, which was completely against his interests. So why did he give Sharon permission to go? Because all his PA contacts assured him that it would be okay, there would be no trouble. In short, he was snookered. Well....not surprisingly, as soon as one person agrees with you, I am going to have to disagree (or at least offer a couple of comments). At the time, I remember articles that stated that Barak would have had trouble forbidding Sharon from going to Temple Mount. Would he have been legally able to it? Also....what price would he have had to pay with the Israeli public if he had done it? Regardless of Barak's motives for allowing Sharon to go....I am much more critical of Sharon's motives for actually going. Just because he had the right to go, doesnt mean he SHOULD have gone. He must have had a clear idea that his going would inspire rioting....and if (as you say) Arafat was looking for an excuse for a second intifada, Sharon should never have allowed himself to be used as the trigger. It seems pretty clear to me that he placed politics above the national interest. The riots might have happened anyway but he wouldnt have been the focal point for the Israeli right.....perhaps Netanyahu would now be PM. Sharon was never a fan of the peace process....he managed to derail any chance for it AND become PM by his trip. Not bad for a single speach. I feel much better....we cant have people agreeing with each other, it would destroy SI ;-). Slacker